Re: SIFT/SURF patents [Re: UPDATE: OpenCV 2.4.6.1]
On 2013/08/14 16:14, Vadim Zhukov wrote: > After reading more off-side, I tend to agree with that we could just > have PERMIT_PACKAGE_FTP=Yes but PERMIT_PACKAGE_CDROM=No. > > I'm not entirely sure if the "nonfree" FLAVOR should be dropped entirely, > but I do not feel myself confident enough to judge on this. :) It's a huge extra chunk of build time to build opencv twice, and there's a risk of things getting in a mess if one version is installed when the other is built (maybe it's fine now, but it's another thing that needs testing for at each update.) If a flavour is not linked to the build, it will very likely get broken somewhere down the line. If somebody particularly needs a version without the patented code then they could help test/maintain that, but until that need is demonstrated, I think there should just be a single version. > I'll send new patch today then, without "nonfree" FLAVOR. Thanks.
Re: SIFT/SURF patents [Re: UPDATE: OpenCV 2.4.6.1]
2013/8/13 Stuart Henderson :
> On 2013/08/13 11:14, Vadim Zhukov wrote:
>> 2013/8/13 Stuart Henderson :
>> > On 2013/08/13 02:42, Vadim Zhukov wrote:
>> >> +# "nonfree" means containing some patented algorithms, see
>> >> +# http://docs.opencv.org/modules/nonfree/doc/nonfree.html
>> >> +# Please always build and test this FLAVOR during version updates.
>> >> +# As some source modules include this functionality, we couldn't
>> >> +# just subpackage "nonfree". Excluding this, here we have a usual
>> >> +# BSDL
>> >> +PERMIT_DISTFILES_FTP = Yes
>> >> +.if ${FLAVOR:Mnonfree}
>> >> +PERMIT_PACKAGE_FTP = No
>> >> +PERMIT_PACKAGE_CDROM = No
>> >> +PERMIT_PACKAGE_FTP-docs =Yes
>> >> +PERMIT_PACKAGE_CDROM-docs = Yes
>> >> +.else
>> >> +PERMIT_PACKAGE_CDROM = Yes
>> >> +.endif
>> >
>> > Seems complicated, and we usually do put this type of thing on ftp (for
>> > example, things which write mp3 files, etc). It should be blocked for CDs
>> > of course. Second opinion wanted, but I think it would be acceptable to
>> > skip the flavour maze and just do this:
>> >
>> > PERMIT_PACKAGE_CDROM = patents
>> > PERMIT_PACKAGE_FTP = Yes
>>
>> Do you mean that:
>>
>> PERMIT_PACKAGE_FTP = Yes
>> .if ${FLAVOR:Mnonfree}
>> PERMIT_PACKAGE_CDROM = patents
>> .else
>> PERMIT_PACKAGE_CDROM = Yes
>> .endif
>>
>> Or do you mean that "nonfree" FLAVOR should be simply removed?
>
> Personally I think we would be OK to just get rid of the FLAVOR, and
> build with SIFT/SURF by default. AIUI as long as we aren't distributing
> commercially then things are ok for OpenBSD, and it's up to users to
> decide for themselves if they are permitted to use it or not.
>
> As I mentioned already though, second opinion wanted ;)
After reading more off-side, I tend to agree with that we could just
have PERMIT_PACKAGE_FTP=Yes but PERMIT_PACKAGE_CDROM=No.
I'm not entirely sure if the "nonfree" FLAVOR should be dropped entirely,
but I do not feel myself confident enough to judge on this. :)
I'll send new patch today then, without "nonfree" FLAVOR.
--
WBR,
Vadim Zhukov
Re: SIFT/SURF patents [Re: UPDATE: OpenCV 2.4.6.1]
Stuart Henderson wrote: > Personally I think we would be OK to just get rid of the FLAVOR, and > build with SIFT/SURF by default. AIUI as long as we aren't distributing > commercially then things are ok for OpenBSD, and it's up to users to > decide for themselves if they are permitted to use it or not. I agree. -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
SIFT/SURF patents [Re: UPDATE: OpenCV 2.4.6.1]
On 2013/08/13 11:14, Vadim Zhukov wrote:
> 2013/8/13 Stuart Henderson :
> > On 2013/08/13 02:42, Vadim Zhukov wrote:
> >> +# "nonfree" means containing some patented algorithms, see
> >> +# http://docs.opencv.org/modules/nonfree/doc/nonfree.html
> >> +# Please always build and test this FLAVOR during version updates.
> >> +# As some source modules include this functionality, we couldn't
> >> +# just subpackage "nonfree". Excluding this, here we have a usual
> >> +# BSDL
> >> +PERMIT_DISTFILES_FTP = Yes
> >> +.if ${FLAVOR:Mnonfree}
> >> +PERMIT_PACKAGE_FTP = No
> >> +PERMIT_PACKAGE_CDROM = No
> >> +PERMIT_PACKAGE_FTP-docs =Yes
> >> +PERMIT_PACKAGE_CDROM-docs = Yes
> >> +.else
> >> +PERMIT_PACKAGE_CDROM = Yes
> >> +.endif
> >
> > Seems complicated, and we usually do put this type of thing on ftp (for
> > example, things which write mp3 files, etc). It should be blocked for CDs
> > of course. Second opinion wanted, but I think it would be acceptable to
> > skip the flavour maze and just do this:
> >
> > PERMIT_PACKAGE_CDROM = patents
> > PERMIT_PACKAGE_FTP = Yes
>
> Do you mean that:
>
> PERMIT_PACKAGE_FTP = Yes
> .if ${FLAVOR:Mnonfree}
> PERMIT_PACKAGE_CDROM = patents
> .else
> PERMIT_PACKAGE_CDROM = Yes
> .endif
>
> Or do you mean that "nonfree" FLAVOR should be simply removed?
Personally I think we would be OK to just get rid of the FLAVOR, and
build with SIFT/SURF by default. AIUI as long as we aren't distributing
commercially then things are ok for OpenBSD, and it's up to users to
decide for themselves if they are permitted to use it or not.
As I mentioned already though, second opinion wanted ;)
